Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

placidranger said:You're missing the point. Prosperity is entirely subjective.

If an economy requires constant money printing just to stay afloat, then neither true progress nor actual prosperity is even possible.

And how do we know progress can exist without constant monetary expansion? History proves it—it happened before, and it'll happen again. Everything you've argued falls apart under that reality.

What's really happening here? Trade flows through money. Progress is definitely possible via direct bartering without any currency involved at all. But the government demands taxes be paid in cash, not in goods or services. It's the same deal for banks and corporations. If things worked differently, there wouldn't be this issue in the first place.

As long as we're stuck using a monetary system, we need to focus on its long-term sustainability—not just looking at a window of maybe 30 years, which is basically the average lifespan of a single currency anyway.

It’s pretty obvious you didn't bother looking up what full-reserve banking actually is before just jumping in with your own made-up version of reality. Honestly, you're just acting like a total fraud who doesn't know the first thing about this stuff, so there's really no point in even talking to you. Your economic theories would basically wreck the entire country and the global economy until we're all back to living in the Stone Age. I bet you're one of those people who loved the old socialist days, probably because you never had to lift a finger to get a paycheck. I really hope you never get the chance to put any of these ideas into practice, but if you do... well, I guess I hope karma finds you. Bye

Maria Thomas48 said:What's really happening here? Trade flows through money. Progress is definitely possible via direct bartering without any currency involved at all. But the government demands taxes be paid in cash, not in goods or services. It's the same deal for banks and corporations. If things worked differently, there wouldn't be this issue in the first place.

As long as we're stuck using a monetary system, we need to focus on its long-term sustainability—not just looking at a window of maybe 30 years, which is basically the average lifespan of a single currency anyway.

You're dodging the point again. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the economic momentum that existed before central banks took over the driver's seat. It wasn't even that long ago.

As long as we're operating within a monetary system, we need to look at its long-term viability—not just its survival for a measly 30 years (which is the average lifespan of a single currency).

Gold held its value for centuries—right up until people like you came along and replaced it.

Melissa Rivera5 said:It’s pretty obvious you didn't bother looking up what full-reserve banking actually is before just jumping in with your own made-up version of reality. Honestly, you're just acting like a total fraud who doesn't know the first thing about this stuff, so there's really no point in even talking to you. Your economic theories would basically wreck the entire country and the global economy until we're all back to living in the Stone Age. I bet you're one of those people who loved the old socialist days, probably because you never had to lift a finger to get a paycheck. I really hope you never get the chance to put any of these ideas into practice, but if you do... well, I guess I hope karma finds you. Bye

Of course I looked into it. There are two sides to this. I was specifically describing the downside. The "better" version is identical to the point I already made. A 50% reserve requirement on deposits is effectively a 100% reserve against loans. That Wikipedia article is useless anyway since it doesn't provide any actual math or diagrams.

All this hostility from you is just a way to mask ignorance and show off how stubborn you can be about being right, even when you're dead wrong. Everything I wrote can be verified with basic math. Your arguments aren't based on mathematical facts; they're just dogmatic statements.

Look, if our country keeps going down this path, we're going to find ourselves in a situation similar to what happened in Greece within five or six years. What would you say is the solution for Greece right now? What should they actually do to dig themselves out of this debt crisis and fix the problem?

placidranger said:You're dodging the point again. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the economic momentum that existed before central banks took over the driver's seat. It wasn't even that long ago.

As long as we're operating within a monetary system, we need to look at its long-term viability—not just its survival for a measly 30 years (which is the average lifespan of a single currency).

Gold held its value for centuries—right up until people like you came along and replaced it.

Well, you could look back at things like Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. That whole mess happened because farmers just couldn't keep up with their taxes. Interesting, right?

Gold held its value for centuries until people like you came along and swapped it out.

Even in the Roman Empire, moving toward gold coinage was basically the start of the end (The Wizard of Oz). Before that, they were mostly using copper.

Your points only work if we accept the specific model you’ve cooked up—which is a problem in itself. A model is just a simplified sketch of reality used to make sense of things, right? We do it because the actual world is too messy and complicated to wrap our heads around all at once. But here’s the thing—the quality of your conclusions depends entirely on the model you start with. And honestly, yours is pretty shaky because it seems like you're missing some fundamental economic basics. Of course, I can already hear the comeback—that our entire understanding of economics is just a lie fed to us by the big bankers and the architects of this whole system. But look, if your model is broken and your premises are garbage, it doesn't matter how perfect your logic is—your conclusions are still useless. So, leaning on "math" to bail you out is just pathetic; it actually just highlights how much you're missing the point.

You don't seem to grasp how prices function as information signals, what inflation actually represents, why people act the way they do, or even what money fundamentally *is*—and those aren't just minor details, they're everything.

It’s easy, isn't it? Just watch some slick documentaries—usually the ones riddled with holes and designed to reinforce biases—but they're packaged so beautifully that people walk away feeling like geniuses. It's a lot easier than actually cracking open a book and using a shred of critical thinking.
Then comes the endless internet crawling, where people cherry-pick whatever confirms their preconceived notions, feeding their own egos while tossing aside anything that challenges them. It’s a level of delusion most people aren't even aware of—they're just so blinded by their own perceived brilliance, convinced they've uncovered some deep truth that the "educated masses" somehow missed.

The real work is recognizing your own limitations and actually trying to fix them, which—spoiler alert—is a long, grueling process.

Here’s a little reading list that might help you sharpen your arguments and realize where you're tripping up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_necessity

But hey, maybe these logical fallacies were just made up by the masters of fiat currency too, right? 🙄

I find it fascinating, really. People like you will shout your theories from every digital rooftop, spamming emails to hundreds of economists and institutions, only to be met with total silence or outright rejection—and yet, you never stop to wonder if you might actually be wrong. Sure, there's always a small group of supporters—mostly folks who haven't been taught much—who'll feed your ego and shield you from any real scrutiny. Thankfully, we don't live in an era where people like you can actually wield power; that would be a disaster.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, you could look back at things like Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. That whole mess happened because farmers just couldn't keep up with their taxes. Interesting, right?

Gold held its value for centuries until people like you came along and swapped it out.

Even in the Roman Empire, moving toward gold coinage was basically the start of the end (The Wizard of Oz). Before that, they were mostly using copper.

What a way to read history. 🙏-
The issue was always the tax rate itself. Period. Look—a landlord or local authority had the power to lower those taxes to prevent an uprising. It’s not about how much money is circulating; it's about the squeeze.

Introducing gold coinage into the Roman Empire was essentially the beginning of the end (The Wizard of Oz). They were using copper before that.

And what about the USA? They made massive strides during periods of deflation when prices dropped under the gold standard.

I don't know. It just feels like things are moving in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes you look at the numbers and the way everything is being handled by the Federal Reserve, and it just doesn't add up. It’s like we’re all just watching a slow-motion train wreck. I'm not trying to be dramatic, I really am, I just think people should pay more attention. There isn't much else to say about it. kaže:
It’s honestly fascinating to me how people like you operate. You go ahead and blast your theories across every single forum and news site out there. You send off emails to dozens, even hundreds, of different addresses—hitting up all those big-shot economists and major institutions—only to have everyone just completely ignore or reject you. And yet, you don't even stop to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might be slightly off base. Sure, there’s always a small group that backs you up, but they’re mostly uneducated types who just exist to boost your ego and shut down any actual critical thinking. It's fine, really. Luckily, we aren't living in an era where someone like you could actually gain any real influence. That would be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Look, here’s how things stand. Let’s say I’m a recognized economist and analyst. I’m sixty years old and I’ve written thirty books. Then I get an email from some guy claiming he can draw all sorts of conclusions just by looking at the equality of three deficits. What am I supposed to do with that? Plan A is I don't respond. Plan B is I stall him—I write back saying I'll get in touch. Plan C is I write a mountain of empty platitudes just to back up the idea that he's wrong. Plan D is I tell him he's actually right.

So, I’ve had a chance to look through all the different proposals being thrown around in the replies. It seems like Plan D was really only ever mentioned by people who don't actually deal with economics in their day-to-day lives.

Why does it work that way? Honestly, it’s because admitting I’m right—and I am, since I’m just applying standard economic formulas using layman's terms—would force every single one of those economists to actually pass that knowledge on. Just think about it. Imagine you're a macroeconomics professor at some big state university. What would you even do? Would you stand up in front of your students and tell them to rip half their textbook to shreds because the author got it wrong? No one would listen. They'd label you crazy immediately, and if you ever managed to land a job, you'd be out on the street before you knew it.

Look, you just can't work against yourself. It’s pretty simple. You don't get two lives, so if you mess this one up, that's it. You're done.

Just imagine if you were an economist working for the Administration. You get another memo outlining some grand scheme to fix the crisis, and then what? Honestly, you’re just a number. You're completely replaceable. Besides, there is zero chance the Administration is going to pivot on policies they have been running for decades just because of one email. The paycheck keeps clearing regardless. People can bark all they want, but the wheels keep turning.

Just imagine you’re sitting there as an editor-in-chief for a major newspaper or a political party, and someone hands you a piece that completely goes against the grain. It’s totally outside the mainstream. Your first instinct would be to run it by your lead economic consultant to see if they can make sense of it. But honestly? They’d be just as lost as some professor at a state university. Not to repeat myself here, but it’s the same story every time.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Honestly, not one single big-shot economist has actually used math to disprove what I'm saying. Not one. Your letter is basically just a carbon copy of some economics professor who also claimed my model was too thin. It’s like, even in this simplified version, the logic holds up, but people keep insisting I need to make it more complex. I don't really get why. In every calculation, there's always this missing chunk of money—the savings part—and I have no idea where that's supposed to come from if I add more layers to the model. Yet, the Federal Reserve statistics show that savings (even if it's just numbers on a screen) are growing. It doesn't add up.

The changes we’re talking about? They aren't just optional. They're inevitable. This whole philosophy regarding how money works needs to be backed up by a real, actual economic strategy from The Administration. There is so much work to be done there. It should be left to the experts, the people who actually know their craft. That ought to have been their job all along. Instead, we're stuck here, just regular people, having to grab a calculator and prove that these highly educated economists are basically selling us a load of nonsense.

Honestly, if a whole bunch of people with economics degrees can't wrap their heads around the fact that their professors were basically feeding them fairy tales, that’s on them. It’s their own problem. If I were in their shoes, I’d walk right up to those instructors and demand answers. Like, seriously, what was that all about? Why am I only hearing the truth now? You can't claim to be an expert if you were taught fundamentally wrong stuff from day one. And look, the connection between budget deficits and printing money isn't some new discovery either; people have known that since the 1920s. Simple as that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism). This economic school of thought basically assigns banks the wrong role—they don't seem to see any issue with low interest rates.

Which means my theory isn't actually new. The theory itself has been around for 90 years. You just have to combine it with measures to prevent money multiplication and you have a solution right there. Everything else is just about protecting the economy and keeping inflation in check.

Besides, you have the website prosperityuk.com/. They've been publishing almost identical stuff for over 10 years now. There is also Simon Dixon's blog, and he is an economist by trade.

When I was writing my first articles, I didn't know about those links. But the result of my own thinking—based on pure math—is nearly identical. So, pointing me toward economics textbooks feels like nothing more than an attempt at indoctrination. I've read all those theories about falling employment and GDP, usury, the quantity theory of money, sustainable sovereign debt, and all that. None of it impressed me at all. For instance, they claim capital should flow toward higher interest rates, which should theoretically equalize them. Yeah, right. In practice, that’s just not how it works. High interest rates usually just mean the economy is in the gutter and isn't generating more exports than imports. And then the country can't fix the economy because its capital is too expensive, making it uncompetitive again. Heh, funny, but true.

Some good people suggested I read the laws, so I looked through the Federal Reserve Act and the ECB statutes (which were just images back then, not searchable text, so I couldn't even use keywords). What I found in those laws was the most important thing: money is currently being issued as even greater debt. Debt that banks take on and inflate for their own profit when they lend it out further.

That effectively renders all those textbook theories useless. Issuing money as even more debt leads only to infinite debt. Every bit of profit retained increases that exponentially over time. And in this system, they try to kill inflation with high interest rates. But they aren't just killing inflation; they're killing the economy too. It seems like it isn't a problem in theory, but in practice, it definitely is.

So that's it. All these theories that every economist knows by heart, yet none of them know how to actually exit a debt crisis. The reason is flawed knowledge. And nobody wants to admit that. Your post is just more proof of that.

placidranger said:What a way to read history. 🙏-
The issue was always the tax rate itself. Period. Look—a landlord or local authority had the power to lower those taxes to prevent an uprising. It’s not about how much money is circulating; it's about the squeeze.

Introducing gold coinage into the Roman Empire was essentially the beginning of the end (The Wizard of Oz). They were using copper before that.

And what about the USA? They made massive strides during periods of deflation when prices dropped under the gold standard.

I should probably carve it into a stone tablet: you can't fix monetary problems through tax policy. It doesn't work that way. If you collect less in taxes, there's less spending. And if spending drops, where is the farmer supposed to get his money? Someone else—not the farmer—would have to go into the red to make that math work. Usually, that's the people actually generating the wealth.

What about the USA? They progressed just fine with deflation and falling prices under the gold standard later on.

I don't find the situation in the USA interesting because I don't know enough about it. The gold standard was a scam. Once you have banks multiplying money, the gold standard becomes a total fraud. Money isn't actually backed by gold because the banks have already multiplied it. In >, they basically point out how the gold standard is used to create economic slavery. Having a limited supply of gold just blocks the growth of the money supply, which needs to keep up with the actual value being created in the economy.

Gold is too expensive to acquire, so using any kind of metal standard to guarantee value is just foolish and unnecessary. Only someone looking to destroy the country would suggest bringing back the gold standard.

Maria Thomas48 said:I should probably carve it into a stone tablet: you can't fix monetary problems through tax policy. It doesn't work that way. If you collect less in taxes, there's less spending. And if spending drops, where is the farmer supposed to get his money? Someone else—not the farmer—would have to go into the red to make that math work. Usually, that's the people actually generating the wealth.

What about the USA? They progressed just fine with deflation and falling prices under the gold standard later on.

I don't find the situation in the USA interesting because I don't know enough about it. The gold standard was a scam. Once you have banks multiplying money, the gold standard becomes a total fraud. Money isn't actually backed by gold because the banks have already multiplied it. In >, they basically point out how the gold standard is used to create economic slavery. Having a limited supply of gold just blocks the growth of the money supply, which needs to keep up with the actual value being created in the economy.

Gold is too expensive to acquire, so using any kind of metal standard to guarantee value is just foolish and unnecessary. Only someone looking to destroy the country would suggest bringing back the gold standard.

There isn't a monetary issue—it's the tax policy right from the jump. That’s what I’m telling you.
Let’s get serious for a second—what would actually happen if a nobleman just decided to stop collecting taxes altogether?

If you cut taxes, people spend less. Simple math. But if spending drops, where does the average Joe get his cash? Someone else—certainly not the guy working a 9-to-5—has to take the hit in the red to make that whole equation work. It should be the ones actually generating the wealth doing the heavy lifting.

The average American will find their way to cash just like they always have. Only this time, they’ll actually be able to afford more—less tax drag means a better standard of living. Simple as that. The noblemen won't be able to spend quite like they used to, though who really knows where all that money was going? It certainly wasn't all trickling back down to the working class. If it were, we’d have a perfectly closed loop running indefinitely—you give to me, I give to you. $33Look, you can try me if you want—but don't expect much. $33 I agree.

I don't have much interest in the situation here in the States—I simply don't know enough about it to weigh in. But let's be clear: the gold standard was a scam from the jump. Once you start seeing banks multiplying money through sheer leverage, the whole idea of being "backed by gold" becomes a total farce. The cash isn't actually covered by bullion because the banks have already manufactured more than exists. It’s exactly like that scene in *The Wizard of Oz* where they explain how the gold standard is just a mechanism to create economic slavery. Having a finite supply of gold is nothing more than a bottleneck; it prevents the money supply from keeping pace with the actual growth of total value.

Gold is far too expensive to be practical—it’s just a waste of resources to try and anchor our currency to some heavy metal. Using a gold standard to guarantee value is a fundamentally flawed concept. Honestly, anyone actually pushing for a return to the gold standard is clearly looking to dismantle the country from the inside out.

It would be wise for you to brush up on some history.

Nostradamus, could you drop a link to the post where you lay out your system? I’d rather not dig through the entire thread...

Are you certain your model is actually sustainable? So far, every single system has proven to be unsustainable. It's possible a stable monetary system doesn't even exist—perhaps economists intentionally designed this one to run for a few centuries before it collapses under its own weight, breaks everyone's back, and forces us to start all over again.

placidranger said:There isn't a monetary issue—it's the tax policy right from the jump. That’s what I’m telling you.
Let’s get serious for a second—what would actually happen if a nobleman just decided to stop collecting taxes altogether?

If you cut taxes, people spend less. Simple math. But if spending drops, where does the average Joe get his cash? Someone else—certainly not the guy working a 9-to-5—has to take the hit in the red to make that whole equation work. It should be the ones actually generating the wealth doing the heavy lifting.

The average American will find their way to cash just like they always have. Only this time, they’ll actually be able to afford more—less tax drag means a better standard of living. Simple as that. The noblemen won't be able to spend quite like they used to, though who really knows where all that money was going? It certainly wasn't all trickling back down to the working class. If it were, we’d have a perfectly closed loop running indefinitely—you give to me, I give to you. $33Look, you can try me if you want—but don't expect much. $33 I agree.

I don't have much interest in the situation here in the States—I simply don't know enough about it to weigh in. But let's be clear: the gold standard was a scam from the jump. Once you start seeing banks multiplying money through sheer leverage, the whole idea of being "backed by gold" becomes a total farce. The cash isn't actually covered by bullion because the banks have already manufactured more than exists. It’s exactly like that scene in *The Wizard of Oz* where they explain how the gold standard is just a mechanism to create economic slavery. Having a finite supply of gold is nothing more than a bottleneck; it prevents the money supply from keeping pace with the actual growth of total value.

Gold is far too expensive to be practical—it’s just a waste of resources to try and anchor our currency to some heavy metal. Using a gold standard to guarantee value is a fundamentally flawed concept. Honestly, anyone actually pushing for a return to the gold standard is clearly looking to dismantle the country from the inside out.

It would be wise for you to brush up on some history.

Then the landlord would be putty in their hands. Some people are just stuck in the Stone Age...🤣

slywolf57 said:Nostradamus, could you drop a link to the post where you lay out your system? I’d rather not dig through the entire thread...

Are you certain your model is actually sustainable? So far, every single system has proven to be unsustainable. It's possible a stable monetary system doesn't even exist—perhaps economists intentionally designed this one to run for a few centuries before it collapses under its own weight, breaks everyone's back, and forces us to start all over again.

My philosophy on how to identify problems is right here: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja

An outline for getting out of this crisis by reforming money regulation: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...izlaz-iz-krize

It’s sustainable. It stays stable. It works perfectly fine within capitalism, though it wouldn't fit in a completely unregulated free market. I should probably mention the late George Washington from Mexico, who laid this out using economic formulas. His theory basically argues that when money circulation slows down because people start saving more, that shortage has to be compensated for. Anyone who knows their economics can take a look at it.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It just feels like things are moving in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes you look at the numbers and the way everything is being handled by the Federal Reserve, and it just doesn't add up. It’s like we’re all just watching a slow-motion train wreck. I'm not trying to be dramatic, I really am, I just think people should pay more attention. There isn't much else to say about it. kaže:
It’s honestly fascinating to me how people like you operate. You go ahead and blast your theories across every single forum and news site out there. You send off emails to dozens, even hundreds, of different addresses—hitting up all those big-shot economists and major institutions—only to have everyone just completely ignore or reject you. And yet, you don't even stop to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might be slightly off base. Sure, there’s always a small group that backs you up, but they’re mostly uneducated types who just exist to boost your ego and shut down any actual critical thinking. It's fine, really. Luckily, we aren't living in an era where someone like you could actually gain any real influence. That would be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Look, here’s how things stand. Let’s say I’m a recognized economist and analyst. I’m sixty years old and I’ve written thirty books. Then I get an email from some guy claiming he can draw all sorts of conclusions just by looking at the equality of three deficits. What am I supposed to do with that? Plan A is I don't respond. Plan B is I stall him—I write back saying I'll get in touch. Plan C is I write a mountain of empty platitudes just to back up the idea that he's wrong. Plan D is I tell him he's actually right.

So, I’ve had a chance to look through all the different proposals being thrown around in the replies. It seems like Plan D was really only ever mentioned by people who don't actually deal with economics in their day-to-day lives.

Why does it work that way? Honestly, it’s because admitting I’m right—and I am, since I’m just applying standard economic formulas using layman's terms—would force every single one of those economists to actually pass that knowledge on. Just think about it. Imagine you're a macroeconomics professor at some big state university. What would you even do? Would you stand up in front of your students and tell them to rip half their textbook to shreds because the author got it wrong? No one would listen. They'd label you crazy immediately, and if you ever managed to land a job, you'd be out on the street before you knew it.

Look, you just can't work against yourself. It’s pretty simple. You don't get two lives, so if you mess this one up, that's it. You're done.

Just imagine if you were an economist working for the Administration. You get another memo outlining some grand scheme to fix the crisis, and then what? Honestly, you’re just a number. You're completely replaceable. Besides, there is zero chance the Administration is going to pivot on policies they have been running for decades just because of one email. The paycheck keeps clearing regardless. People can bark all they want, but the wheels keep turning.

Just imagine you’re sitting there as an editor-in-chief for a major newspaper or a political party, and someone hands you a piece that completely goes against the grain. It’s totally outside the mainstream. Your first instinct would be to run it by your lead economic consultant to see if they can make sense of it. But honestly? They’d be just as lost as some professor at a state university. Not to repeat myself here, but it’s the same story every time.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Honestly, not one single big-shot economist has actually used math to disprove what I'm saying. Not one. Your letter is basically just a carbon copy of some economics professor who also claimed my model was too thin. It’s like, even in this simplified version, the logic holds up, but people keep insisting I need to make it more complex. I don't really get why. In every calculation, there's always this missing chunk of money—the savings part—and I have no idea where that's supposed to come from if I add more layers to the model. Yet, the Federal Reserve statistics show that savings (even if it's just numbers on a screen) are growing. It doesn't add up.

The changes we’re talking about? They aren't just optional. They're inevitable. This whole philosophy regarding how money works needs to be backed up by a real, actual economic strategy from The Administration. There is so much work to be done there. It should be left to the experts, the people who actually know their craft. That ought to have been their job all along. Instead, we're stuck here, just regular people, having to grab a calculator and prove that these highly educated economists are basically selling us a load of nonsense.

Honestly, if a whole bunch of people with economics degrees can't wrap their heads around the fact that their professors were basically feeding them fairy tales, that’s on them. It’s their own problem. If I were in their shoes, I’d walk right up to those instructors and demand answers. Like, seriously, what was that all about? Why am I only hearing the truth now? You can't claim to be an expert if you were taught fundamentally wrong stuff from day one. And look, the connection between budget deficits and printing money isn't some new discovery either; people have known that since the 1920s. Simple as that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism). This economic school of thought basically assigns banks the wrong role—they don't seem to see any issue with low interest rates.

Which means my theory isn't actually new. The theory itself has been around for 90 years. You just have to combine it with measures to prevent money multiplication and you have a solution right there. Everything else is just about protecting the economy and keeping inflation in check.

Besides, you have the website prosperityuk.com/. They've been publishing almost identical stuff for over 10 years now. There is also Simon Dixon's blog, and he is an economist by trade.

When I was writing my first articles, I didn't know about those links. But the result of my own thinking—based on pure math—is nearly identical. So, pointing me toward economics textbooks feels like nothing more than an attempt at indoctrination. I've read all those theories about falling employment and GDP, usury, the quantity theory of money, sustainable sovereign debt, and all that. None of it impressed me at all. For instance, they claim capital should flow toward higher interest rates, which should theoretically equalize them. Yeah, right. In practice, that’s just not how it works. High interest rates usually just mean the economy is in the gutter and isn't generating more exports than imports. And then the country can't fix the economy because its capital is too expensive, making it uncompetitive again. Heh, funny, but true.

Some good people suggested I read the laws, so I looked through the Federal Reserve Act and the ECB statutes (which were just images back then, not searchable text, so I couldn't even use keywords). What I found in those laws was the most important thing: money is currently being issued as even greater debt. Debt that banks take on and inflate for their own profit when they lend it out further.

That effectively renders all those textbook theories useless. Issuing money as even more debt leads only to infinite debt. Every bit of profit retained increases that exponentially over time. And in this system, they try to kill inflation with high interest rates. But they aren't just killing inflation; they're killing the economy too. It seems like it isn't a problem in theory, but in practice, it definitely is.

So that's it. All these theories that every economist knows by heart, yet none of them know how to actually exit a debt crisis. The reason is flawed knowledge. And nobody wants to admit that. Your post is just more proof of that.

You either forgot or you aren't aware that there are countless different schools of thought within what we call economic science—many of which contradict each other entirely. A huge number of people in this thread don't agree with current monetary policy in America or elsewhere.

Similarly, a certain number of people disagree with the theories taught in universities. These academic theories are used by governments, and even when they follow the "textbook" advice perfectly, the results don't match the predictions. Therefore, the theories are flawed.

However, just because the government and academia are wrong doesn't automatically mean you're right. When you spout nonsense like this, it's obvious you haven't grasped the fundamentals of economics. You mentioned it—that "flawed knowledge" being used while everyone refuses to admit it's useless—but your proposed solution is definitely not the answer. That principle has been tried before, and it failed.

Maria Thomas48 said:My philosophy on how to identify problems is right here: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja

An outline for getting out of this crisis by reforming money regulation: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...izlaz-iz-krize

It’s sustainable. It stays stable. It works perfectly fine within capitalism, though it wouldn't fit in a completely unregulated free market. I should probably mention the late George Washington from Mexico, who laid this out using economic formulas. His theory basically argues that when money circulation slows down because people start saving more, that shortage has to be compensated for. Anyone who knows their economics can take a look at it.

Quantity theory of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

That isn't his theory. 🙄

You’re all out here attacking Nostrađurus, even though he’s actually on your side—honestly, I thought you guys were smarter than this.

Nicole Gomez38 said:You’re all out here attacking Nostrađurus, even though he’s actually on your side—honestly, I thought you guys were smarter than this.

It’s not about him—it’s about the solutions being put on the table.

He can claim to be on our side all he wants, but we've seen these "fixes" before. They’ve been tried, they failed, and they didn't deliver a damn thing. Bottom line? The proposed solutions are garbage.

brightlynx11 said:Quantity theory of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

That isn't his theory. 🙄

The real difference lies in where the money entering the system actually comes from. Nenadović concluded that the only valid solution is non-credit based, specifically through government issuance. Under that model, obviously, banks aren't allowed to trigger credit expansion.

I'm not trying to hand over some magic bullet solution here. I'm just presenting the evidence and a potential path out of this mess through monetary regulation reform. The current way we regulate money is basically a scam. Once you see that, you know exactly what needs to happen.

A plan to escape a crisis is really just a framework with set guidelines. It explains why we have to cap how much the financial sector can earn and why. It also covers why prices can't just be hiked up without any oversight. That usually ties back to either wanting more cash for the same amount of work—which devalues the dollar—or simply being unable to cover costs when prices rise without that devaluation happening.

placidranger said:You either forgot or you aren't aware that there are countless different schools of thought within what we call economic science—many of which contradict each other entirely. A huge number of people in this thread don't agree with current monetary policy in America or elsewhere.

Similarly, a certain number of people disagree with the theories taught in universities. These academic theories are used by governments, and even when they follow the "textbook" advice perfectly, the results don't match the predictions. Therefore, the theories are flawed.

However, just because the government and academia are wrong doesn't automatically mean you're right. When you spout nonsense like this, it's obvious you haven't grasped the fundamentals of economics. You mentioned it—that "flawed knowledge" being used while everyone refuses to admit it's useless—but your proposed solution is definitely not the answer. That principle has been tried before, and it failed.

So, what exactly was the nonsense I said?

And when exactly was this tried in this specific way?

Maria Thomas48 said:So, what exactly was the nonsense I said?

And when exactly was this tried in this specific way?

You’re talking nonsense in every single post, man. Some of the basics you seem to miss include understanding what money actually is—its role, its function—and how banks and credit systems actually work. Plenty of people have been pointing out your mistakes since day one of your posting history.
I'll admit, your early stuff caught my attention—it was interesting enough—but the further I read, the less sense it made. The absolute peak of it all had to be that Excel spreadsheet you used to "prove" the entire system is unsustainable.
Or take your assumption that regulators will suddenly become honest in some new system just because they're "good people at heart."..

And when exactly has this specific model ever been tested?

Controlling the money supply has been tried countless times. 😉
The specific variations don't matter—it has never worked.